ICT-BD [ICT-21] Miscellaneous Case No. 01 of 2014 Order: 02 December 2014 criticism on subjudice matter intending to derogate the institutional image and authority of the Tribunal. In such case the court of law is obliged to extend its hands to protect its image and authority in the mind of public. Also it does not appear that this article was written and circulated in the interest of public. 45. David Bergman the contemnor, in his first article however finally commented that Moreover, whether 3 million, 300,000 or indeed even 30,000 were killed, the number of deaths in 1971 was very very large. And no-one can really deny that. There is enough substantiated evidence to suggest that whatever the exact number of deaths, a very large number of civilians were killed 46. Be that as it may, why he felt enthused to create confusion in the mind of public? It was his ‘mind set’ and 'malicious intent' from the net of which he never intends to come out, we have found it. At the end of the article titled 'Sayedee indictment: 1971 deaths’ posted on 11 November 2011 in his blog David Bergman commented: "As a result, coming back to the tribunal's remark in its 3 October order about the number who died, it may well have been preferable for it not to have mentioned these particular figures. Maybe the prosecution will provide evidence to support this figure in the course of the trial but, as yet, it has not done so". 47. The contemnor, it appears clearly, has attempted to articulate his audacity by making such comment. With the comment --"It may well have been preferable for it [Tribunal] not to have mentioned these particular figures"—David Bergmann, in other words, questioned the authority and ability of the Tribunal and ‘advised’ it [Tribunal] ‘not to mention’ the death figure. And he made such ‘advice’ pending trial of all the cases including the case of Sayedee. The contemnor is a journalist and providing such ‘advice’ in the name of exercising right to freedom of expression he has crossed the limit of his professional ethics. He does not have either expertise or license in making such 'unfair' and demeaning comment'. Intention was malicious. The criticism cannot be 14